Global warming and misleading information from both Government and "green organisations"

It is a well known fact that climate change and movement of fish stocks is a cyclical event and has little or no bearing on the activities of man. The scaremongering can be attributed primarily to the control methods of the politicians and the dubious agenda of various green organisations. I worked for some while with an accomplished chemist chris edgecombe who developed a renewable biofuel for use in power stations. He was vilified by Government departments and the likes of certain "green organisations" because he attempted and succeeded in producing a fuel that was not only renewable but non polluting and capable of the reducing the emissions from coal fired power stations. It is a fact that governments have no intention of losing their excise duty on hydrocarbon fuels and will do their best to stop research into green fuels (see latest news on Drax power station) Mr Edgecombe was also responsible for creating a similar fuel, which I think was called Biofuel 5 for use in marine diesel engines to reduce emissions and possible pollution in the event of the ship losing fuel or sinking. One of his other creations was a green heat transfer fluid to replace petro-hydrocarbon fluids and thus completely remove the risk of serious pollution under the COMAR regulations. There are many scientists working on green renewable fuels that do not decimate or de-forest areas and displace the indigenous wildlife. Each and every one is a target of either Government paranoia or fall foul of the aspirations of personal glory by certain members of the so called "green" organisations. Geekiep (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geekiep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.  Again, welcome!  

Clubmarx (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nazi and Japanese Nuclear weapons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essay like/personal research. Topics are already covered in German nuclear energy project and Japanese nuclear weapon program.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Clubmarx (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Claremont Chemical Company Limited has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Karljoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An article that you have been involved in editing, HTF-15, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTF-15. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Karljoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• You'll get more feedback if you post your objections on WP:Articles for deletion/HTF-15. Before you comment, I recommend to take a closer look at WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, Assume good faith and WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. Good luck. — Rankiri (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your conduct is being discussed here. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And didn't I ask you to stay off my talk page? If you go on there again, I'm reporting you. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Erpert. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geekiep. You have new messages at Paste's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I did not attack erpert, in fact quite the contrary he accused both me and Chris Edgecombe of being liars and hoaxers with no other justification than the lame excuse that he couldn't find an entry on Google. Chris Edgecombe is a close friend of mine and a brilliant scientist who is well known and respected throughout the industry in both the USA and Europe. Because he is not egotistical enough to seek some self congratulatory entry on Google does not make him any the less notable. His work in the very important field of renewable and non toxic/polluting fuels and solvents is of greater value to mankind than some of the entries allowed just because they have a Google entry. If this is the only criteria by which information is judged then may I suggest you do away with "editors" and just use a computer programme that checks on a Google entry and rejects everything else. It is quite simple to arrange a Google entry but what purpose would this serve ? Looking at the various people who have judged Edgecombes inclusion as unacceptable it is quite obvious that many approach the task of editing as a casual game and boast about how many contributions they have deleted. I find erperts responses quite offensive and arrogant and will take action to have him removed as an "editor"Geekiep (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN for your responsibility here. I find it astonishing that no news of this person appears to have reached Google, given his allegedly major contribution to biofuels. Nothing in New Scientist? Nothing in Scientific American? No university professorships? I remain to be convinced. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will find us scientists, by our very nature, are quite a modest lot - professorships aren't our bag. You will be telling me next that you have no knowledge of one of Chris's closest collegues, John Cosgrove in South Carolina USA who is equally eminent in renewable products for coatings, lubricants and anti-corrosives !!Geekiep (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists publish. So what papers have Mr. Edgecombe or Mr. Cosgrove published? Gerardw (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do they, that’s news to me, John and Chris. In our field of work there are only too many losers who would love to be given details of our work. We don't mind advising brief details of the concept of the products we develop, but even the customers (E-on, RWE etc) don't know exactly how and why our products work. Certain info has to be given to the various Government bodies (HSE, COMAH, OFGEM etc) but even then we don't advise ratios, reactions etc. There are many, so called, scientists around who publish impressive sounding junk and many more who write pieces for their original work (most of which is patent nonsense). In my naivety I thought that Wikipedia may have been a good platform to advise the interested that work is being done in the field of renewable energy rather than the nonsense of "wind turbines" but it seems that a fiddle player and several other nonentities would rather rack up their score of deletions than take the time and trouble to discuss how this field of information could be best presented. Geekiep (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from the above-mentioned "fiddle player": Given the lack of published work (“I am a great scientist but I don’t publish my work”, “I am the best novelist but I don’t publish it; I just keep a copy of my novels in my hard drive”, SERIOUSLY???), articles featuring his (and your) work, academic appointments etc I'd say that you and your friend are the nonentities. If your work is so important, what are you doing around here? The world is full of arrogant people with far too much free time. Cheers!--Karljoos (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reply only illustrates just how little you understand the real world. A novelists final product is a novel - what don't you understand about that ? An industrial chemist’s final product is the compound or blend, publishing the work is merely incidental and commercially inadvisable, unless you are just on an ego trip. In your case music is purely subjective - you may think you are good just because you played in an orchestra but the world is full of mediocre musicians and very poor orchestras. I would suggest you think carefully before being critical of the talents of others. I would suggest you drop the subject as you are only making a bigger fool of yourselfGeekiep (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, then where is the compound or blend? Where can we read about it, buy it, order it or ask someone who has heard about it, where is it produced or used? Nowhere. One thing is sure: you don't know who I am because I don't edit under my real name (you're so arrogant to presume that I played in mediocre orchestras), but I know who Chris Edgecombe is: NOBODY (and not worth an article here). Accept that and move on with your life. You and Chris Edgecombe don't deserve one more second of my time. Keep in your line and I am sure you will be blocked! Have a good life.--Karljoos (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]